JMortensen Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 What are the specific disadvantages of this pivot movement? I fail to see any intuitively. I can see the advantages of lining up the vertical axis of pivot with that of the LCA. For instance, on my car the LCA pivot was moved up 13/16", but the TC was left alone. If I exaggerate this in my mind, I can see that braking could induce extra dive in the front. Therefore, and I think this was explained in Jon's thread (already referenced once in this thread), moving it up maybe even past the point of parity (for example, moving TC pivot up 1.5"), might create a resistance to brake induced dive. In addition to all of that, shortening the TC rod makes the caster curve more extreme so you start losing caster as the rod goes past horizontal. Also John has mentioned some effect to the camber curve, I never really got that part. I suppose that as the caster shifts negative the control arm would be pulled back and that might make it move away from it's farthest outward point which would affect camber. Maybe that's what he is talking about? Regardless, I still see the rod end type TC rod like AZC sells as having a HUGE advantage over stock in that it has so much less friction and the caster adjustability. So, just a wee bit of effort and less than $100, I can reduce (eliminate) the possibility that my currently doubly poly bushed TC rod will snap. I can also move the pivot up to remove the pro-dive geom. I introduced when I raised the LCA pivot. Any holes in this theory of mine? I think the TC rods are longer than that tie rod you've got there so my concern would be that you might need some sort of extension or turnbuckle in the middle. Also I don't know if I'd be comfortable with the little spring clip holding the pin on the clevis. Probably not an issue but if some piece of road debris caught it it could pull the clip right out. Not very likely, but I'd use a bolt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeromio Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I agree - not sure what the length is, but 13" is too short. I figured the hockey stick could have suffficient length to make up the distance. Agreed also on the change in the Camber curve - but really this would be only in the extreme. If you figure the TC rod is around 16" then that ~1" that the tie rod's ball moves the pivot axis equates to a 6% change. If I decide to increase caster, then the difference starts to get smaller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 The clevis you're looking at has a .48" opening, so it would be awfully thick metal and probably pretty heavy. I've got some reservations too about the bending load on a long hockey stick. I think you want that part as short as you can conceivably make it. A long flat piece of steel might want to bend like a spring. I'm REALLY unsure about that, but hopefully someone else can tell you better than I can if it is in fact a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBeaut Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Hey Jeromio, that's pretty much the same solution as I came up with - see post 9 for a pic. I've since got hold of some tie rods from a Ford Transit van - no idea what that would relate to over in the US, but they're longer than the Escort rods and thicker at 16mm diameter as well. So if they end up being too long I can just trim them down and cut the thread along a bit more. I'll probably have to tweak the design of my clevis a bit to accomodate it as well, but for the time being I'm concentrating on getting a sounds chassis to put the fun stuff on to! Cheers, Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.